David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) and the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations (Senator Evans) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Abetz) and Senators Bernardi and Payne today relating to a proposed carbon tax.

Having heard the answers provided by ministers today, I can only conclude that those opposite live in some rarefied, latte-sipping, elitist little world where they simply do not come across everyday Australians—the people they once referred to as working families. When they do, they treat their opinions, concerns and fears as the rantings of the ill-educated, the ignorant or of the little people who know no better. These Australians deserve better, because they face real financial struggles and challenges every day. They are getting angry that Labor shows no appreciation of the challenges they face. Those opposite seem to have no concept of the cost of living pressures that continue to mount on Australians as so many of life’s necessities, such as groceries, electricity, gas, water, petrol and transport, increase in cost. Many of these increases are influenced by decisions of government, either directly or indirectly, yet this government seems to have no knowledge, understanding or appreciation of the magnitude of the struggle faced by so many Australians. No, it seems to think that they have an endless ability to pay more as it seeks to pile tax upon tax on them. The most recent attempts at this are the flood tax and the carbon tax, which was announced last week.

Ignoring for the moment the stark betrayal of the Australian people that this breach of a clear, concise and totally unambiguous pre-election promise represents, this attempt to hit the Australian people with another tax demonstrates that Labor is out of touch with Australians. Of course, the government will tell you that this tax is different; this tax is needed to address the evils of climate change, or so we are told. The fact is, whether or not you accept the need for urgent action in this area, this tax will not and cannot reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases, no matter how it is designed. We have heard the argument why this is the case put eloquently by this side of the chamber and in the other place over recent days. Indeed, it is a fact that many on the other side of the chamber know and acknowledge the truth in private. Today we asked questions of Minister Wong that go to the heart of what she thinks about carbon taxes. It is probably worth repeating some of the statements that Minister Wong has made in the last couple of years. They include:

A carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions.

And:

A carbon tax … is a recipe for abrupt and unpredictable changes, as the government would need to adjust the tax frequently to try to meet the emissions reduction target, each time subjecting these adjustments to the inherent uncertainties embedded in the political process.

Finally, and I think this is the real clanger:

The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore.

That is exactly what those on this side of the chamber and in the House have been saying ever since the Prime Minister broke her promise last week and moved to introduce a carbon tax.

This is particularly relevant given some of the answers that we received to questions in estimates last week. All we really know about what the government is going to do with this tax is that it will impose a tax and it will impose it from 1 July next year. But the government itself has no idea of what level of tax it will impose, how much per tonne people will have to pay or on what. Even in the last couple of days it has been refusing to rule out putting the tax on petrol. Last week in estimates, those in Treasury who did the 2008 modelling which came up with the figure of $26 per tonne said clearly that it was not possible to say now what price would need to be charged to meet Labor’s promised emissions targets, which is what this is all about. The officials said last week that too much had changed since they did that modelling in 2008 to be able to say whether that $26 per tonne remained a relevant figure or whether it should be something different. No new modelling has been done since that time to inform the government of what figure that should be.

The Australian people now face a situation where they have the certainty of Labor introducing a carbon tax but Labor themselves have no idea how big that tax needs to be in order to deliver their own emissions targets. They do not know if it is the $26 per tonne which was modelled and found to be the case in 2008— (Time expired)

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was quite perplexing to listen to Senator Bushby’s contribution to this debate. It surprises me because my recollection is that he was a member of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee that inquired into the CPRS bill, as it was called at that stage. I was a member as well. I can certainly remember the contributions made by scientists, economists and a whole plethora of people with experience who came along. They made contributions making it clear that this is a serious issue. It is serious enough for people to come into this chamber and make contributions and have a debate on this matter rather than throw up scare campaigns and talk about sipping lattes and all this sort of nonsense. It gets really bad when you have the opposition coming into this chamber making those ridiculous, outrageous claims. There is no substance to their argument on this pressing issue.

They pretend to be the champions for workers. They come in here and say: ‘We’re concerned about what will happen with jobs. We’re concerned about what will happen with workforces.’ Where were they five years ago when they introduced Work Choices into this parliament? They were champing at the bit to bring in laws to diminish conditions and to restrict workers from accessing unfair dismissal rights. There were a whole range of severe cases that brought back IR extremes from the 19th century. That is how far they went with Work Choices. We fixed that and we will fix the climate.

We will introduce laws and we will get them through this chamber to make sure the climate is protected, unlike those on the other side. What is their view? What does their leader say? He says that climate change is crap. That is their position. Not one of them have refuted that position. They stand up and champion that. They champion the view of their so-called opposition leader that climate change is crap. That is why they come to this chamber and support the policy of a $30 billion deficit. That is what their policy will create. Their policy is as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. They know it, and that is why they cannot come in here and defend it. They come in here with these scurrilous, ridiculous claims that they are going to do something for the climate. They are not, and the Australian public know that.

The differences between the policies of the government and the opposition are clear. We have a policy that will make sure polluters pay. Conversely, they have a policy that will make taxpayers pay for pollution. Those are the differences between the two of us.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a view of making sure polluters pay, Senator Bernardi—unlike you over there. You want the taxpayers to fund your policy of a $30 billion bill. That is what you want to do on your side of politics. We will make sure that taxpayers are protected in this exercise as opposed to you lot. You have form in that. If you remember, leading up to the election, an $11 billion deficit was found in your promises. This is why you cannot be trusted on anything. This is why you will fail in these arguments.

Going back to Senator Bushby, he was on those inquiries. He cannot hide from that. He heard the evidence from scientists and economists. He knows there are jobs in this. He knows there is protection in this for the economy. He knows the opportunities that exist to encourage renewable energy. But he does not come in here and argue those points. No, he comes in here and supports his leader’s position that climate change is crap like the rest of you do.

That inquiry was followed up by the inquiry of the Select Committee on Climate Policy. It had good representation. I thought for a moment there that some of the people on the opposite side were coming on board and supporting climate change. But, no, at the end of the day when the report came out they were against it. They have always been against it, unlike us. We have tried to put through climate change legislation since 2008—

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bushby interjecting—

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Furner, just a moment. Senator Bushby, you have made a contribution in this debate, so I think it would be helpful if you would restrain yourself.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has made a contribution, and the emissions that have come from the other side have been unbelievable. There have been enough tonnes of emissions contributed from the opposition to lead to climate change and a concern about us being worthy enough to put forward legislation that will address the issues on climate change. We will prosecute that argument and we will succeed.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is extraordinary to listen to Senator Furner. My only advice to him would be to go back to reading his speeches, because when he gets fired up and is trying to extemporaneously talk he makes a complete and utter fool of himself and his entire policy. I say that not in a personal sense. Senator Furner said, ‘We will fix the climate.’ What a load of poppycock; what a load of nonsense. These people do not even know what the detail of their policy is, and yet he is promising to fix the climate. Gee, how are you going to do that when Australia acts on 0.038 per cent of emissions? This claim by this government that they are going to fix the climate is an extraordinary claim; an egotistical claim; a narcissistic claim. On the other hand, Senator Furner said that they are for climate change. Quite frankly, I am against climate change. I would rather that the climate stay as it is so that we do not have more extreme weather events and so forth. But Senator Furner is for climate change.

Let me turn to the matter of substance, which was, in asking Senator Wong about compensation, trying to find out how that was going to change their behaviour. Senator Wong, quite frankly, played right into our hands. She dealt a straight bat to it and said, ‘We’re going to make sure that we compensate families.’ And yet Ms Gillard, the Prime Minister, said that there has to be a price impact on families; otherwise, it is not going to have any effect. And yet Senator Wong told us that they are going to fully compensate families. This is a catch-22; a tautology. It is a complete round robin of nonsense from this government.

There is no question at all that the government is going to take billions of dollars out of the economy from businesses and sequester it in the government coffers and then distribute it as they see fit. This is the redistribution of wealth. It makes an absolute mockery of the Australian people for this government to suggest that if a company pays $600 million worth of extra tax—which is what some research indicates that an electricity generation company will pay—that they are not going to pass that on to consumers. Then the government is going to compensate consumers. So how is this going to reduce emissions at all?

Senator Wong has been damned by her own statements in this regard. She has said that a tax will not guarantee a reduction in emissions. This is a great con—a carbon con. In fact, even the term ‘carbon’ is a con, because what we are talking about is reducing carbon-dioxide emissions, not carbon. Carbon is that thing that is in every living creature. Acting Deputy President Trood, you are about 18 per cent carbon—very good quality carbon; there is no question about that. Apparently, this government want to tax you, just like they want to tax every Australian taxpayer.

The real issue—what they have neglected—is that they are putting in place a tax on carbon-dioxide, that odourless, colourless gas that we all respirate whenever we exhale. This is a tax on humanity. This is a tax on hot air. Why wouldn’t a government that is intent on reaching deeply into the pockets of Australian family, that is so far out of its financial depth that it is absolutely drowning—and taking the taxpayer with it—and that is financially incompetent and broke tax something like hot air? They are desperate, and they can tax it to their heart’s content and claim that they are fixing the climate, as Senator Furner said. This is an absolute nonsense. It is not going to make one bit of difference to the climate, despite Senator Furner’s assurances. It is not going to make one bit of difference to the global temperature. But it will make a difference to every Australian family. It will make a difference to Australia’s competitiveness.

And it has made a difference to the Australian people already, because this government lied about it. When Ms Gillard said, ‘There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,’ she did not tell the truth—just like she did not tell the truth to the Labor caucus when she said that they were going to support the bill from the Greens that is going to give rise to same-sex marriage in the ACT and maybe the Northern Territory. She did not tell the truth then. She did not tell it to the Australian people when she said that there would be no change in the marriage laws. Now she has given in to the Greens. She did not tell the caucus. They slapped it through in one line. It did not even go to the cabinet. That shows the hopelessness of this government. The broken promises—the carbon tax promise and the territories promise—go the heart of this government: the Greens tail is wagging this dog of a Labor government.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there were ever a need for a carbon tax on hot air it was after that contribution. I really do not know how you can draw the bow to link this issue with a proposed private member’s bill that is yet to come before us. That bow would have to have a very long string. The accusation that the Prime Minister has lied over her commitment on gay marriage is an outright misrepresentation of the facts.

But let us get back to the substance of what we are debating here, the carbon tax. Let us be very clear: the Labor Party and the Prime Minister have always—before the election campaign, during the election campaign and since the election campaign—been very clear that we as a Labor government want to tackle climate change. We have always been upfront with the Australian community on our belief in the scientific evidence that has come before our committees and the public. The majority of those opposite do not even believe in climate change. Those sceptics over there are happy to run a scare campaign and not to have an informed debate about the issues of climate change. Some of those opposite are really scared. The scare campaign that they ought to be focused on is: where is Malcolm Turnbull, who is he going to be after and what changes will come into effect when he resumes the leadership?

What we need to do is focus on the issues that are before us and the effects of climate change that we are experiencing as a community. We know that electricity prices have been increasing across the country. That is not going to change. What we need to do is address the urgent need to tackle climate change in a serious way. The government has made it very clear that families will face increased costs to their household budgets. But we will be compensating them for those increases.

Unlike those opposite, we as a government are willing to work together. The other side is making a big issue about the Greens running the agenda for the Labor government. In fact, we are more than happy—as we have been in the past when there was an agreement on the ETRS—to work together with those who are committed to addressing climate change. But no, those opposite—the majority of those in the chamber and their leader, Mr Abbott—do not recognise and do not believe that there is a need to address climate change. How can you work with them and have a serious debate when all they are about is opposing, opposing, opposing and being the opposition for opposition’s sake?

We need to acknowledge that there are people who do acknowledge that something has to be done and who in fact support the government. I quote Graham Bradley, the President of the BCA, in the Sydney Morning Herald on 1 March 2011:

We argued long and hard … for a bipartisan approach on this important issue in the interests of longer-term certainty. As soon as that breaks down we are in a very difficult political environment for business … we would prefer the two major parties to come together so there is some longevity to the policy.

Heather Ridout also made comments urging that we work together. So those opposite, if they are going to be serious and participate in this debate, instead of making personal attacks on senators’ contributions from this side, ought to look at their own backyard. Senator Bushby, my colleague from Tasmania, came into this chamber and was so hypocritical in accusing the government senators of being out of touch with the Australian community and Australian families. I do not recall him speaking up for Australian families when the Howard government introduced Work Choices. I did not hear him once. In fact, I am not sure that Senator Bushby would even recognise a working family in Tasmania, let alone have any association with one. This debate is an important one, and we welcome it. We will be consulting and will continue to consult with the community on this issue. We do not believe we have all the answers. (Time expired)

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The members opposite have no answers—and I rise to take note of the nonanswers given in question time today and to note that all this government is doing is dancing a dance. Our Prime Minister is dancing a very merry dance, at the behest of the Greens and to avoid calling a tax a tax. She is dancing a very merry dance to try to deny that she has broken a promise that there would under her government never, ever be a carbon tax. We might as well do the hokey pokey again on a dud of a policy that is all pain and no gain. It is bereft of detail; it is a total dud. All it will do is distort the market. It is bereft of details. Is petrol in or is petrol out? You put petrol in, you take petrol out. You put petrol in and you shake the tax about. You do the hokey pokey and—ooh!—you turn right around. And what happens when you turn right around? You are back to where you were before: all pain, no gain. As Senator Furner said, it is as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike. The government’s carbon tax will surely be that, and as useless as tits on a bull. The analogies are endless.

The Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong, said that the carbon tax is all about the future. No, it is not. We are in a time warp. It is like the ETS all over again. It is a dud of a policy. You have released it without detail. It is all pain and no gain. We might as well do the Time Warp dance:

It’s astounding;

Time is fleeting;

Madness takes its toll.

So let’s do the Time Warp. You might as well take us back to the time of the ETS with this carbon tax, because that is what it is—‘Let’s do the Time Warp again.’ It is, after all, ‘just a jump to the left’ and then a ‘step to the right’ as this government moves us closer and closer to a carbon tax. The government jumped to the left and said, ‘We’ll never have a carbon tax.’ The government then stepped to the right, because now they would have us believe that that which was wrong before apparently—a carbon tax—is now right. Now it is right to have a carbon tax.

So put your hands on your hips—and this is where it gets good; we are supposed to believe that—because the Prime Minister, hands on hips, is going: ‘Tut, tut, tut. It’s not a tax; it’s a scheme. It’s a market based mechanism.’ Call it what you will, it is a tax. A tax is a tax is a tax. So:

Put your hands on your hips.

Bring your knees in tight.

The Prime Minister is going to have to do that. She is going to have to bring those knees in tight, because Minister Wong has conceded that yes, the carbon tax will increase prices; it will increase costs. Bring your knees in tight. The government might as well confess a carbon tax will increase petrol prices at the bowser. Once the Australian people are aware of the increased prices at the bowser, bring your knees in tight. Some of that excess money will be siphoned offshore for the government to deliver on the UN pledge for developed countries to subsidise developing countries to save themselves on climate change. But it is the pelvic thrust:

But it’s the pelvic thrust

That really drives you insane.

It is the pelvic thrust. It has to be parliamentary. The Prime Minister wants it to be.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McEwen interjecting—

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McEwen, lift your head. It is at the behest of your Prime Minister. It is the pelvic thrust that is really going to drive the Australian people insane, and that is the carbon tax. It is a dud of a policy without detail. It will be all pain and no gain. And yes, Senator McEwen, you should hang your head in shame, as should your Prime Minister and your government.

Question agreed to.